My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2007
>
CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:29:57 AM
Creation date
7/15/2008 11:11:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/16/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Vishanoff related that the Arena Transportation Issues Committee, a subcommittee of the Fairmount <br />Area Neighbors, was meeting but it was not advertising the meetings. He took issue with that. He thought <br />the subcommittee needed to be forthright about its meetings so that the public did not have to go through a <br />lot of trouble to find out about “meetings in dark rooms.” He averred that urban renewal had many fronts in <br />Eugene. He wanted a plan that really included the citizens. <br /> <br />th <br />Paul Nicholson <br />, 1855 East 28 Avenue, recalled the cities in which he once lived and urban renewal <br />projects that had occurred there. He felt urban renewal had been devastating to all of the cities. He believed <br />it was a deficient process. He averred that people deserved to have a proposal and to engage public input <br />before it was a “done deal.” He asserted that he had correctly projected the low number of jobs that the <br />Riverfront Renewal District had generated. He also predicted the Broadway Place development would not <br />produce the benefits that were hoped. He stressed that 40 percent of the cost of the project had come from <br />public funds. He opined that it was difficult to see concomitant public benefit. <br /> <br />Jan Wostmann <br />, 2645 Riverview Street, urged the council to not extend the life of the urban renewal district <br />and also not to increase the maximum indebtedness. He believed it was difficult for the public to become <br />involved with this level of financing when there was no project on the table. He likened this to placing the <br />“cart before the horse.” He felt this type of tax increment financing complicates the citizens’ determination <br />of what the highest use of tax dollars would be. He noted the recent discussion of the need for a new City <br />Hall and the need to maintain streets. He acknowledged the citizens’ desire to improve the downtown area <br />but he felt that if questions were asked regarding how it would be paid for in light of the financial needs in <br />other areas, such as the street maintenance and preservation and new city hall, citizens would have a <br />different response. He asserted that parking structures would be on the bottom of their list of priorities. He <br />suggested that the project be placed before the public and financed with a General Obligation (GO) bond. <br />He supported having a vibrant downtown, but he wanted the City to do it in a publicly accountable way. <br /> <br />Russ Brink <br />, 251 West Broadway, said he lived at Broadway Place. He read into the record an email from <br />Sue Prichard, Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) board member. He noted that Ms. Prichard was very <br />knowledgeable about the economy of the downtown and the leasing and sale of real estate in the downtown <br />area. Ms. Prichard supported adoption of the ordinance. She believed that tax increment financing was a <br />good tool that would ultimately improve the values of surrounding businesses. She thought it was <br />sometimes okay to make small sacrifices for the overall gain of the community. <br /> <br />David Monk <br />, 3720 Emerald Street, declared that all of the citizens would love to see their taxes stay in their <br />neighborhoods. He opined that it was a great deal for the property owners in the downtown area. He <br />wanted to see revitalization in the downtown area but he questioned how the City was going about it. He <br />alleged that Connor and Woolley were largely responsible for the “blight” in the downtown and opined that <br />“getting rid of them” would improve it. <br /> <br />Mr. Monk opposed the ordinance until a specific plan had been developed and the WBAC was done with its <br />work. He reiterated Councilor Bettman’s concern regarding the lack of money listed in Table 5 that was <br />slated for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements and other public facilities. He also had not seen <br />money in the plan for relocation and transition costs for the businesses that could be displaced. <br /> <br />Rob Handy <br />, 455½ River Road, was excited about bringing more housing to the downtown area. He asked <br />how the public subsidy could be weighed against the public benefit. He suggested that the City should look <br />at some of the buildings other than the two slated to be renovated. He believed that other buildings would <br />have public benefit to the public subsidy that citizens would understand. He likened the City’s involvement <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.